Recently, in the National Post, Lawrence Solomon wrote a very interesting article in which he criticized the two alternatives of withdrawing from any involvement in the Middle East and simply rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies as he put it. His third alternative was apparently to assist in the creation of smaller, ethnically homogenous states as I understand it. But a sentence leaped off the page that resonated in my mind as a much broader perception of the hundred year period from 1850 to 1950.
He said “the Western world has got to take responsibility for the artificial nations it has created.” He was speaking, of course, of the renunciation of colonialism that created such nations as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, and Libya. In each of these entities, he correctly identified that diverse and obviously hostile ethnic groups were confined within the same borders, and ultimately caused a form of radicalization and detachment from tradition and stability, which today is manifest in a strident anti-Americanism. He could equally have said that the creations of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the division and transfer of Prussia to Poland and to Russia, likewise created ethnic tensions which have never really been resolved.
It occurred to me that these perceptions cover a period of time from approximately 1850 to 1950, during which period the European powers abandoned the entities which they had amalgamated and administered as colonies. From a Western Canadian perspective, this particularly applied to the creation of Canada. It was, after all, the amalgamation of vast, diverse areas with conflicting interests, ideologies, languages, and cultures into one country which has emerged as a multicultural polyglot. Today, it reflects the modern version of United Nations chaos. It has, in fact, no identity, no culture, no common language, no flag that reflects any value whatsoever, but compromise, compromise, compromise.
As long as these entities, created artificially and completely without reference to ethnic identity, tradition, language, or culture, are involved in a period of relative prosperity, conflict does not appear to occur, but the Middle East is a perfect example of what in the long run will happen to every multicultural nation.
Canada is, today, an institution created by 19th Century thinking, by a group of colonial officials in London who wished to divest themselves of a vast, administrative nightmare, where for over 4000 miles of territory, they lacked sufficient resources to either police, control, or alternatively benefit. They made the practical decision of delegating all their authority to something “Canadian.” There never was, in actual fact, an entity known as Canada. In the same sense that today’s Syria is made up of conflicting groups, Alawites, Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’ite Muslim interests, there is an overwhelming tendency to impose authority by force, currently demonstrated by Hafez Assad, and in Libya for the same reason previously imposed by the Gadhafi family.
The West, in hope of its stability, had subsidized, supported, and in fact funded dictators like Saddam Hussein, Hafez Assad, and Gadhafi, all of whom they could deal with, much as they did with Egypt’s president, Mubarak, by giving them money. That whole system is coming unravelled today and the biggest area of stability appears to be the absolutely monarchy of Saudi Arabia and the rather polyglot nation of India. Pakistan, it appears, is lapsing into a form of narco-political anarchy.
All of these concerns demonstrate the fragility and lack of stable traditional harmony which a nation deserves and which a nation can achieve.
Mr. Solomon pointed out the success of the South Sudan separation from the north of Sudan. The latter is stridently Muslim and extremely hostile to the West and South Sudan is a proud ally of the West.
In the same way, Canada could be divided into the regions of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, being three separate entities, the four western provinces being one country with a common language and a common interest in resource production. Only over time could a common culture emerge, by a closer identification with the essential interests of the people living in the region. Canada today is a unique bastion of stability in a world of economic, debt-ridden chaos. Ireland, Europe, the United States, all former areas of wealth and prosperity, are sinking into debt depravity. Canada, on the other hand, supporting its economy essentially by the export of Western Canadian resources, is relatively stable with the continuing ignorance of Western Canadians that the wealth of Canada is being borne on their backs with the taxation they provide being used to subsidize such wasteful enterprise as the perpetual education at minimal cost of Quebec university students.
Gradually, Western Canadians are waking up, and much as the South Sudanese became much better off when they were free and independent, Western Canadians will soon learn the same salutary lesson. The essential ingredients of Western Separatism therefore are as follows:
1.) A realization of the colonial arrangement that created Canada.
2.) A realization of the costs of Confederation to Western Canada.
3.) The political will to do what is legally possible, ratified by the Clarity Act, and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is conduct a referendum for independence in each province of Western Canada, and amalgamate a nation from the provinces so choosing, with a regionally-elected Senate, a common language, common economic policy, smaller government, and constitutional rights of referendum, initiative, and recall.
The foregoing formula will rectify the irresponsible transfer of authority to the government of Canada of 1867, which once done was never possible to correct, change, or rectify, because of the fact its constitution became and was at that time, un-amendable and impossibly complicated.
Our job in the Western Block is to create a new wave of understanding, and a hope for the future by the recognition of the hundred years of irresponsibility that produced chaos around the world from 1850 to 1950, and from India to the Middle East to Canada, set up countries that had no right or benefit to their existence.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Coming Police State
Recently, while watching an American television program called “Law & Order,” I heard a statement presented as an introduction to the program which truly shocked: “The criminal justice system has two parts, the police who apprehend criminals and the prosecutors who present evidence of their crimes in court.” To a vast audience of the young, naïve, and perhaps unsophisticated, this is all there is. I thought this might be just an American view, but then I began to think of my experience.
I thought of W. T.’s case, where the police seized my client’s sailboat which was his only home, $47,000 in cash which he held in trust from investors in his boat during repairs, and then they took his car. He was left with a bicycle and a hotel bill. His crime? He has never been convicted of any drug crime since 1994, when he was fined $400 for cultivating marijuana. He is not charged with any crime now, nor are any criminal charges pending against him. No need of proof, no need of evidence of crime, just seizure by Canada Border Agency and Civil Forfeiture. Why bother with courts? Just take what you want if you carry a gun.
I thought of Bruce Montague, a former gunsmith who because he objects to the gun registry, refuses to obtain licenses or registration of his vast gun collection. He securely hides them in a secret sealed room so even the police can’t find them. After a trial in which the myriad of complex gun laws are presented to a confused jury by a self-assured prosecutor, they convict him of unsafe storage, improper storage, and unlawful possession, and in 120 counts damn him for keeping his own property, safely. Unsatisfied with that, the government wants forfeiture of all the guns, ammunition, and other items seized. The court partly agrees. The province wants civil forfeiture of his log house, which he and his family built with their own hands from scratch. In that action, they have no right to remain silent, no right to a jury, no right to the presumption of innocence, and no right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The state needs only prove a balance of probabilities.
There are many more examples I could give, but I shall stop with these two examples. The first statement at the beginning of “Law & Order” reveals the premise of all the rest. There is no person ever wrongly accused, no need of a defence counsel, no need of an impartial judge, no need of a trial really. Just take the money, property, savings, and home of the alleged criminal. Crime pays – the State. Thus, a police state arrives with no dictatorial revolution. Why is this? There are three main reasons…
1. Firstly, the average Canadian wants to be nice and sees police as nice, so to be accepted as Canadian, they help police. This is supposed to be the way to prove patriotism in the minds of many. Police are well paid, respected, privileged, and trusted to carry guns, so they must be right. This is an impression based on prestige and the desire to be acceptable.
2. Secondly, the average Canadian can see what has happened to those who stand up to authority, to either question or reject (or as authorities would say “to defy”) authority. They can see what happens to those on the disapproval side of authority and they are very afraid it might happen to them. This is a very powerful impression based on fear, subtle unstated but effective fear.
3. Thirdly, there is a strong sense of conformity in society and an inherent belief in all groups that their leadership must be nice and benevolent. This permeates society because to believe otherwise creates discomfort, alienation, and among moral beings (to which category most ordinary people belong) a strong obligation to do something about it. Much easier to just believe in the system and if some G8 protester gets locked up without trial or charge, he or she must have done something wrong. This group delusion is based on the herd instinct, conformity, laziness, and comfort in the status quo. Put another way, change is uncomfortable and inertia prevents it.
What is the Remedy?
The police state is really the last phase of a decadent culture, in denial of its founding premises. It really appeals to all the worst features of an entrenched elite, to which everybody struggles to conform and to belong. This is precisely where Canada is now. The elite owns and controls the media, and elects the politicians, who appoint the judges, who impose the desires of the State with absolute unquestioning obedience. Canada has left power in the hands of a Central Canadian Mafia since 1867 and left the West and the Maritimes as useless appendages, of no consequence unless the opinions of the Ontario and Quebec mafia appear to disagree. In that case, the election is actually decided with votes from Western Canada.
So to restore true democracy, a Triple-E Senate, referendum, initiative, and recall, to re-establish a vision of liberty throughout our land, we must free the West. Change in Canada in a positive sense is impossible. Those who wanted a Triple-E Senate discovered this when they attempted to amend the constitution and ran head first into the wall of opposition in Ontario and Upper Canada. Improvement in a positive sense in Western Canada is inevitable and desirable. What can we in the West have? The essential alternative between a growing, intrusive, burdensome police state, ramming their way into our lives, or Independence and a whole new way of self-government where our voices really count. The bitterness of many at the growing police state requires a return to a peaceful referendum to avoid violence. Violence of any individual merely legitimizes much more effective violence by the state against the individual. Thus, we see our final goal of Independence as the only way for positive, constructive change and to sideline forever all talk of violence. Ordinary people need to join and support our movement for positive change.
I thought of W. T.’s case, where the police seized my client’s sailboat which was his only home, $47,000 in cash which he held in trust from investors in his boat during repairs, and then they took his car. He was left with a bicycle and a hotel bill. His crime? He has never been convicted of any drug crime since 1994, when he was fined $400 for cultivating marijuana. He is not charged with any crime now, nor are any criminal charges pending against him. No need of proof, no need of evidence of crime, just seizure by Canada Border Agency and Civil Forfeiture. Why bother with courts? Just take what you want if you carry a gun.
I thought of Bruce Montague, a former gunsmith who because he objects to the gun registry, refuses to obtain licenses or registration of his vast gun collection. He securely hides them in a secret sealed room so even the police can’t find them. After a trial in which the myriad of complex gun laws are presented to a confused jury by a self-assured prosecutor, they convict him of unsafe storage, improper storage, and unlawful possession, and in 120 counts damn him for keeping his own property, safely. Unsatisfied with that, the government wants forfeiture of all the guns, ammunition, and other items seized. The court partly agrees. The province wants civil forfeiture of his log house, which he and his family built with their own hands from scratch. In that action, they have no right to remain silent, no right to a jury, no right to the presumption of innocence, and no right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The state needs only prove a balance of probabilities.
There are many more examples I could give, but I shall stop with these two examples. The first statement at the beginning of “Law & Order” reveals the premise of all the rest. There is no person ever wrongly accused, no need of a defence counsel, no need of an impartial judge, no need of a trial really. Just take the money, property, savings, and home of the alleged criminal. Crime pays – the State. Thus, a police state arrives with no dictatorial revolution. Why is this? There are three main reasons…
1. Firstly, the average Canadian wants to be nice and sees police as nice, so to be accepted as Canadian, they help police. This is supposed to be the way to prove patriotism in the minds of many. Police are well paid, respected, privileged, and trusted to carry guns, so they must be right. This is an impression based on prestige and the desire to be acceptable.
2. Secondly, the average Canadian can see what has happened to those who stand up to authority, to either question or reject (or as authorities would say “to defy”) authority. They can see what happens to those on the disapproval side of authority and they are very afraid it might happen to them. This is a very powerful impression based on fear, subtle unstated but effective fear.
3. Thirdly, there is a strong sense of conformity in society and an inherent belief in all groups that their leadership must be nice and benevolent. This permeates society because to believe otherwise creates discomfort, alienation, and among moral beings (to which category most ordinary people belong) a strong obligation to do something about it. Much easier to just believe in the system and if some G8 protester gets locked up without trial or charge, he or she must have done something wrong. This group delusion is based on the herd instinct, conformity, laziness, and comfort in the status quo. Put another way, change is uncomfortable and inertia prevents it.
What is the Remedy?
The police state is really the last phase of a decadent culture, in denial of its founding premises. It really appeals to all the worst features of an entrenched elite, to which everybody struggles to conform and to belong. This is precisely where Canada is now. The elite owns and controls the media, and elects the politicians, who appoint the judges, who impose the desires of the State with absolute unquestioning obedience. Canada has left power in the hands of a Central Canadian Mafia since 1867 and left the West and the Maritimes as useless appendages, of no consequence unless the opinions of the Ontario and Quebec mafia appear to disagree. In that case, the election is actually decided with votes from Western Canada.
So to restore true democracy, a Triple-E Senate, referendum, initiative, and recall, to re-establish a vision of liberty throughout our land, we must free the West. Change in Canada in a positive sense is impossible. Those who wanted a Triple-E Senate discovered this when they attempted to amend the constitution and ran head first into the wall of opposition in Ontario and Upper Canada. Improvement in a positive sense in Western Canada is inevitable and desirable. What can we in the West have? The essential alternative between a growing, intrusive, burdensome police state, ramming their way into our lives, or Independence and a whole new way of self-government where our voices really count. The bitterness of many at the growing police state requires a return to a peaceful referendum to avoid violence. Violence of any individual merely legitimizes much more effective violence by the state against the individual. Thus, we see our final goal of Independence as the only way for positive, constructive change and to sideline forever all talk of violence. Ordinary people need to join and support our movement for positive change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)